S BALACHANDAR Vs. N PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is respondent in the Civil Revision Petitions and defendant in Suit in O.S. Nos. 232 and 200 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. This respondent filed a Suit for recovery of money. The petitioner, at the time of examination of co-owners 1 filed an Application in I.A. No. 48 of 2007 in O.S. No. 232 of 2004 to receive additional written statement with a plea that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 6,28,505/- only. The Petition was dismissed by the Court below. Thereafter, the respondent preferred C.R.P. (PD) No. 3056 of 2007 before this Court and this Court dismissed the same on 3.1.2008. Again it is stated that with an identical plea, this petitioner filed I.A. No. 31 of 2008 in O.S. No. 232 and I.A. No. 258 of 2008 in O.S. No. 200 of 2004 under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending written statements to incorporate the above said prayer. The Court below allowed the Applications. Hence, the respondent preferred above Civil Revision Petitions before this Court. At the time of hearing of Civil Revision Petitions there was no appearance on the part the petitioner. Notice on him was served through his counsel on record before the Court below. However, there was no appearance on his behalf before this Court.

(2.) On hearing of the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court on 22.1.2009 allowed the Revision Petitions directing the Court below to dispose of the Suits in O.S. Nos. 232 and 200 of 2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Orders

(3.) Presently, the petitioner has come forward with these Applications by stating that he did not receive any notice in the Civil Revision Petitions from this Court. Subsequently he has also filed a better affidavit by stating that his counsel at lower Court was refusing to receive instructions from him during the relevant period over the dispute about the payment of Advocate fee, he informed the petitioner about the pendency of the Revision Petitions only on 20.3.2009 and at that time alone he came to know that the Petitions were disposed on merits on 22.1.2009.